对健康康复行动计划(WRAP)培训的认知:系统回顾与综合

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Louise Canacott, Anna Tickle, Nima G. Moghaddam
{"title":"对健康康复行动计划(WRAP)培训的认知:系统回顾与综合","authors":"Louise Canacott, Anna Tickle, Nima G. Moghaddam","doi":"10.1108/mhrj-10-2019-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this systematic review was to address two questions: what is the qualitative evidence for the effects of the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) training, as perceived by adults with mental health difficulties using it? What is the quality of qualitative literature evaluating WRAP?,Five electronic reference databases and the EThOS database for unpublished research were systematically searched, as well as two pertinent journals. Study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria and results analysed using thematic synthesis.,Of 73 studies, 12 qualitative papers met inclusion criteria and were generally good quality. Analyses demonstrated expected findings, such as increased understanding and active management of mental health in the context of group processes. Results also highlighted that WRAP training promoted acceptance and improved communication with professionals. Peer delivery of WRAP was highly valued, with contrasting perceptions of peers and professionals evident. Some cultural considerations were raised by participants from ethnic minorities.,WRAP training participation has positive self-perceived effects beyond those captured by measures of recovery. Broader implications are suggested regarding earlier access to WRAP, professional support and communication between professionals and service users. Recommendations for further research include the relationship between social support and illness self-management and peer-delivered acceptance-based approaches. Multiple time-point qualitative studies could offer insights into WRAP training processes and whether changes are sustained.,As the first review of qualitative evidence regarding WRAP training, value is offered both through increased understanding of outcomes and also guidance for future research.","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"345-366"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/mhrj-10-2019-0037","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of wellness recovery action plan (WRAP) training: a systematic review and metasynthesis\",\"authors\":\"Louise Canacott, Anna Tickle, Nima G. Moghaddam\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mhrj-10-2019-0037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this systematic review was to address two questions: what is the qualitative evidence for the effects of the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) training, as perceived by adults with mental health difficulties using it? What is the quality of qualitative literature evaluating WRAP?,Five electronic reference databases and the EThOS database for unpublished research were systematically searched, as well as two pertinent journals. Study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria and results analysed using thematic synthesis.,Of 73 studies, 12 qualitative papers met inclusion criteria and were generally good quality. Analyses demonstrated expected findings, such as increased understanding and active management of mental health in the context of group processes. Results also highlighted that WRAP training promoted acceptance and improved communication with professionals. Peer delivery of WRAP was highly valued, with contrasting perceptions of peers and professionals evident. Some cultural considerations were raised by participants from ethnic minorities.,WRAP training participation has positive self-perceived effects beyond those captured by measures of recovery. Broader implications are suggested regarding earlier access to WRAP, professional support and communication between professionals and service users. Recommendations for further research include the relationship between social support and illness self-management and peer-delivered acceptance-based approaches. Multiple time-point qualitative studies could offer insights into WRAP training processes and whether changes are sustained.,As the first review of qualitative evidence regarding WRAP training, value is offered both through increased understanding of outcomes and also guidance for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"345-366\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/mhrj-10-2019-0037\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-10-2019-0037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-10-2019-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

这项系统审查的目的是解决两个问题:有心理健康困难的成年人认为,健康恢复行动计划(WRAP)培训的效果有哪些定性证据?评估WRAP的定性文献的质量是什么?,系统检索了五个电子参考数据库和EThOS数据库,用于未发表的研究,以及两份相关期刊。使用关键评估技能计划标准评估研究质量,并使用主题综合分析结果。,在73项研究中,12篇定性论文符合纳入标准,总体质量良好。分析表明了预期的发现,例如在群体过程中提高了对心理健康的理解和积极管理。研究结果还强调,WRAP培训促进了接受度,并改善了与专业人员的沟通。WRAP的同行交付受到高度重视,同行和专业人士的看法截然不同。少数民族与会者提出了一些文化考虑。,WRAP培训的参与具有积极的自我感知效果,超出了恢复措施所捕捉到的效果。建议对早期使用WRAP、专业支持以及专业人员和服务用户之间的沟通产生更广泛的影响。进一步研究的建议包括社会支持与疾病自我管理之间的关系以及基于同伴接受的方法。多时间点定性研究可以深入了解WRAP训练过程以及变化是否持续。,作为对WRAP培训定性证据的首次审查,通过增加对结果的理解以及对未来研究的指导,提供了价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceptions of wellness recovery action plan (WRAP) training: a systematic review and metasynthesis
The purpose of this systematic review was to address two questions: what is the qualitative evidence for the effects of the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) training, as perceived by adults with mental health difficulties using it? What is the quality of qualitative literature evaluating WRAP?,Five electronic reference databases and the EThOS database for unpublished research were systematically searched, as well as two pertinent journals. Study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria and results analysed using thematic synthesis.,Of 73 studies, 12 qualitative papers met inclusion criteria and were generally good quality. Analyses demonstrated expected findings, such as increased understanding and active management of mental health in the context of group processes. Results also highlighted that WRAP training promoted acceptance and improved communication with professionals. Peer delivery of WRAP was highly valued, with contrasting perceptions of peers and professionals evident. Some cultural considerations were raised by participants from ethnic minorities.,WRAP training participation has positive self-perceived effects beyond those captured by measures of recovery. Broader implications are suggested regarding earlier access to WRAP, professional support and communication between professionals and service users. Recommendations for further research include the relationship between social support and illness self-management and peer-delivered acceptance-based approaches. Multiple time-point qualitative studies could offer insights into WRAP training processes and whether changes are sustained.,As the first review of qualitative evidence regarding WRAP training, value is offered both through increased understanding of outcomes and also guidance for future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信